ORDER MODIFYING IN PART AND ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING IN PART MAY 14, 2013 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, District Judge.

This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 6.) On May 14, 2013, Judge Watanabe issued a Recommendation advising the Court to grant in part and deny in part Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 16). (Doc. # 30 at 10.) On May 28, 2013, Defendant timely filed an Amended Objection to the Recommendation. (Doc. # 33.1) On June 11, 2013, Plaintiff responded to the Amended Objection. (Doc. # 40.)

When a magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive matter, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) requires that the district judge "determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's [recommended] disposition that has been properly objected to." Accord 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). In conducting its review, "[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id.; accord 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

Having conducted a de novo review of this matter, including carefully reviewing all relevant pleadings, the Recommendation, Defendant's Objection, and Plaintiff's response thereto, the Court determines that Judge Watanabe's Recommendation should be modified in part and affirmed and adopted in part as follows. First, in addressing Plaintiff's statutory claim for its purported loss due to hail damage, Judge Watanabe found that "[t]here has been no showing of any unreasonable delay or denial of payment by defendant with respect to its actions regarding plaintiff's initial claim of loss from the hail storm (namely, there was immediate assignment to an adjusting company which inspected the property and explained its findings to plaintiff, a reinspection upon request by a roofer [Harris] who had inspected the roofs on behalf of plaintiff, review of Harris's additional photos, and the appraisal process, including an inspection and findings of a neutral umpire)." (Doc. # 30 at 7-8.) Plaintiff did not object to this finding and, indeed, has focused its response on persuading the Court to allow its wind damage claim to go forward. (See Doc. # 40.) The Court agrees with Judge Watanabe that Defendant did not act unreasonably regarding Plaintiff's initial claim of loss from the hail storm. Because no genuine dispute of material fact exists, and Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, on this aspect of Plaintiff's statutory claim, summary judgment will enter for Defendant on Plaintiff's statutory claim regarding the hail damage. Second, the Court agrees with Judge Watanabe, and is not persuaded to the contrary by Defendant's Objection, that Defendant failed to meet its summary judgment burden with regard to Plaintiff's statutory claim based on wind damage. Third, the Court further agrees, and neither party disputes, that summary judgment should enter in Defendant's favor on Plaintiff's common law claim, which it confessed after the close of discovery. (See Doc. # 30 at 5, 10.)

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: